The thing is Lefties can try to argue interpretation to the wind repetitively, but the minds of the SCOTUS Have given us Heller with the arguments laid out in Scalia’s authored well thought out majority opinion which stands until overturned or the 2nd is subjected to the amendment process.done for now, nothing to argue.
Your statement, above, is false, and you knew it was false when you made it. Other than restating your unpersuasive arguments, you have not responded to my, cogent, sound, and axiomatic criticism of your premise. Restating your premise is not a defense of your premise, but a demonstration that you know you cannot defend it. Defend your premise, else it stands proven false.
Its completely false because while keep and bear was most often associated with military contexts (which makes sense because the founders had just been in a war) it was not exclusively used for that reason It would be akin to picking up a copy of American Rifleman circa 1946 and note that the NRA only cared about military weapons because the vast majority of firearms featured in the magazine during those years were the military weapons brought back to the states by our victorious soldiers-such as the K-98 carbine, NAMBU Japanese Pistols, etc the gun banners never ever have come close to saying that because KEEP AND BEAR mainly involves military contexts, such a term EXCLUDES other uses. It doesn't and they KNOW that
Even Heller admitted that the preamble of the Second Amendment can be used to resolve ambiguities. So if there's any doubt about what the term bear arms means then the preamble can be looked to for guidance. There is plenty of evidence that bear arms had an idiomatic military meaning in the 18th Century. Check out the COFEA (the Corpus of Founding Era American English) and COEME (the Corpus of Early Modern English) databases. So there are two possibilities: 1) The term bear arms has an unambiguous military meaning. 2) The term is ambiguous so the preamble should be looked to for guidance in interpreting the term in the Second Amendment. The preamble is about the importance of a well-regulated militia. It is NOT about the importance of personal self-defense or hunting. Neither possibility works out well for your side.
what doesn't work out well for your side is that there is not a single letter, note or utterance from any founder that even hints that they intended that the new government could restrict arms ownership by private citizens. Also what destroys the dishonest attempts to pretend that the second doesnt protect an individual right is the comment the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. add that to the tenth and the fact that Article One Section Eight does not contain even a whiff of gun control powers all combine to destroy the attempts by the statists to pretend there is not an individual right On top of that, you have to deal with the practicalities of the time. Militias are not professional armies. Those who might serve were farmers, accountants, merchants, tradesmen etc. One could not form a well regulated (in working order) militia without having firearms to use when not in temporary service and finally there is NOTHING that suggests gun control was going to be a federal power
This is off-topic here. I'll respond in the appropriate thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-2nd-amendment.586263/page-50#post-1074678981
I have no idea what you're trying to say. My premise is explained and defended in the OP. Feel free to rebut any part of it you feel you can question. Be sure to quote the part you are rebutting, though. That way we BOTH know what you're talking about. Assuming, of course, you KNOW what you're talking about.
Wonderful! FINALLY we're getting somewhere. Now, the next step should be simple. It's where you SHOW us this "proof"
He did-next the right of the people not the state (states don't have rights) not the militia (the militia doesn't have rights) the people-yes the people have rights and as noted in the tenth amendment, the founders clearly distinguished states versus people case close
"The people" doesn't mean the states but it also generally doesn't have a very individualistic meaning. It's used in sentences which refer to collective action. The First Amendment, for example, says the people can peacably assemble. Article 1 says members of the House shall be chosen by the people. Bearing arms in the militia is also a collective action.
that was what Akhil Amar once tried to argue-that it was akin to serving on a jury but he backed off that after it was constantly attacked but assembly is an individual action that many engage in and The first amendment has always been seen as a guaranteeing individual rights here is the main issue-the normal interpretation of the second amendment-ie the individual rights one-not only fits with the rest of the bill of rights and the context in which the bill of rights were created. The discredited "collective rights" nonsense ignores both
Yes. And my response disproved your premise and dismantled your defense of same. You have yet to rebut my response with anything other than your restatement of the premise and a couple well-placed "Nuh-UHs" Must be all you have.
...the right of the people... The collective cannot hold a right that each of the individuals in that collective hold unto themselves.
I haven't seen you even ADDRESS my premise. But you are more than welcome to repeat the part of my premise you are "disproving" (quote it, please) and then explaining your arguments.
Since you are new to this forum, I did something I very rarely do. Which is go back to a post when you could have simply repeated your argument. This is usually done by people who are not completely convinced of themselves. People who are convinced of their argument have NO problem repeating them as often as necessary. But since you are new to this forum, I thought I'd give you the example. I said: "Many confuse the right to keep and bear arms, with an individual right to own weapons." You responded: " There's no confusion. The right of "the people" Not the state, not the state militia, not the ..." That is NOT the confusion addressed in this thread. The confusion is "right to bear arms" vs "right to own guns" The OP makes this abundantly clear. So the rest of your post is based on you not being aware of what this thread is ABOUT. I encourage you to always read the COMPLETE OP before responding. After you do that, if you STILL think you can rebut my point, go for it! On the other hand, if what you want to debate is the PURPOSE of the 2nd A. That is being discussed in a different thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/
That people owning or not guns is as IRRELEVANT to the 2nd A as owning or not... pants... Neither was of any relevance, or even mentioned in the discussions in Congress leading to the approval of the 2nd A
wrong as usual, the second amendment is a negative restriction on the federal government so as to prevent it from interfering with the right of the people to keep, bear, own, use, store, collect, buy etc arms
OOoohhh. I seeee.... You're either the Black Knight, or you believe lying to yourself is a legitimate means of debate. Post 1578, chum. When you believe you can meaningfully respond, let us know. Until then, your premise remains proven unsound.
